Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I'd suggest not to pretend that everything is a URI. HTML5 does allow
> URIs (if that's a concern) as tokens as the only requirement is that a
> token consists of at least one character and no whitespace characters.
URIs give you the infrastructure for disambiguating relation names
without a central registry. Some consider this a feature.
>> Is there a technical argument behind that, or is it just personal
>> preference? IANA is well-recognised, has processes in place for change
>> control, is accountable for availability, continuity, etc. and is
>> backed by a stable financial structure. I don't see any benefit to
>> making an exception for one type of registry when every other one on
>> the Internet uses IANA, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
> The reason is that it makes managing the registry less centralized. As
> in, everyone can easily propose something new that is then subject to
> community review on whether it will be endorsed or unendorsed. See
>
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions
>
> for instance.
> ...
Again, there's no need to centrally register a relation name, as it can
be a URI.
BR, Julian